It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

FLIGHT 93 - The Biggest 911 Smoking Gun!

page: 26
24
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 06:34 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeVet
 


I may be a fact that statements were made, but that does not make those statements fact.




posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 06:48 PM
link   
In case anyone is unsure of exactly what NIST does, below is a link of what each department does:

www.nist.gov...

Please take special note of how they test and what they test in their Manufacturing Engineering Laboratory:

"MEL Research Areas


Calibration Research: length, mass, force, acceleration, acoustical pressure, measurement uncertainty

Material Removal Processes: milling, turning, grinding, lapping, polishing

Coordinate and Machine Tools: CMMs, laser trackers, probes, performance, condition based maintenance

Laser and Optics: interferometry, striae, air refractivity, surface finish, EUVL

Surface and Nano: roughness, stylus instruments, interferometry, STM, AFM, SEM, Linewidth, photomasks

Interoperability / Integration: sensor interfacing and networking, open architecture control, product data standards, conformance testing, STEP

Simulation, Visualization and Modeling: Simulation architectures and interfaces, distributed simulation standards, neutral models and prototypes

Intelligent Systems: knowledge engineering, planning, learning

Homeland Security: industrial control security

Intelligent Control of Mobility Systems: AGV, military robotics

Health Care: manufacturing metrology and standards for the health care enterprise"



and Materials Science and Engineering Laboratory:

"Program Reports

Nanometrology (pdf)

Micro- and Optoelectronics (pdf)

Priority Programs

Advanced Manufacturing Processes (pdf)

Biomaterials (pdf)

Materials for Electronics (pdf)

Nanometrology (pdf)

Carbon Nanotubes

Safety and Reliability (pdf)

Research Divisions:

Ceramics
Annual Report (pdf)

Materials Reliability
Annual Report (pdf)

Polymers
Annual Report (pdf)

Metallurgy
Annual Report (pdf)

Center for Theoretical and
Computational Materials Science"



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 06:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by MikeVet
 


I may be a fact that statements were made, but that does not make those statements fact.


"I may...." should read "It may....."



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by OrionStars
 



Because there are numerous reports of what looked to be a C-130 (confimred by military) was flying over the Pentagon and Shanskville. That was after the FAA finally grounded all planes, and prior to the Pentagon and Shanksville alleged descriptions of events by the "official" reports. That is why.

Unless, people could see inside a C-130, they would never know if it was a C-130, EC-130, or a DC-130. They all look alike on the exterior.


So the military's confirming that a C-130 they used to remotely control the two hijacked aircraft and fly it low enough to the ground so that people could see it? Makes good sense to me.

The C-130 took off from Andrews after the ground stop was ordered. The ground stop didn't allow any more aircraft to take off, at 945 all aircraft were ordered to land. Neither one of these actions included military aircraft. It was only civilian aircraft. Or else the Otis F-15s and every other fighter would have had to land also.

Minnesota air National Guard pilot Steve O'Brien was flying the C-130. The Minnesota air National Guard does not fly DC-130's or EC-130's. They ply the standard cargo version C-130H. none of that really matters though, you still haven't shown proof that any C-130 can control UAVs or conduct voice morphed phone calls.

Sorry, not all C-130's book the same on the outside.

The following quotes below are from your source.


It was highly classified. (Since when is a routine ANG flight so classified that nobody at the Pentagon or NORAD knows!)

I like how they take classified and turned into a highly classified. The second sentence is absurd. A little old air National Guard Lt. Col. has higher classification than all the generals at the Pentagon and NORAD? Only in the mind of a conspiracy pusher.


Even though his account is rather immature and laced with inconsistencies, it was a clever ploy to turn an embarrassing and incriminating incident into something rather contrary. Since the government seemed to be coming up short of good evidence in substantiating it’s story, it appears that they elected to craft this “I saw the plane” tale. The tale would, like others before him (Donald “Tim” Timmerman — who fell on his face on CNN), attempt to unequivocally state that it was an American Airlines 757 — Flight 77. More on Steve O’Brien and the C-130 in the “Witnesses” chapter.
That guy must be part of The Citizen Investigation Team. For more information about the C-130 and its pilot account, click this link. abovetopsecret.com


This of course was just spin, while the real questions were being circumvented. For one, why was the C-130 following and guiding a jet toward the Pentagon? Why was it circling above the Pentagon just prior to the attack? And why was this exact plane spotted, and even confirmed by the military, over Shanksville during Flight 93’s crash? And most importantly, how was the government promptly able to launch a transport plane, but unable to launch any high-speed fighters?


To answer the first question, it was following the jet because Washington Departure Control asked them to. It wasn't guiding anything.

It wasn't circling the Pentagon at the time the attacks. It had just flown past and air traffic control asked if they could see it. When they replied yes we can, they asked the C-130 to follow flight 77.

To answer their third question, because the Super Secret Shadow Government wanted to give away their Supersecret New World Order plot to take over the world.

To answer their fourth question, the government didn't launch it, that's when they were scheduled to take off. They were unable to launch any high-speed fighters? I thought they launched four of them. Actually it was more than that, Andrews launched unarmed fighters.


We can reconstruct the flight paths of the jet and the C-130, which followed it by a few seconds. Witnesses claimed it was flying “on top of and behind” of a jet “and guiding it toward the Pentagon” as “to prevent two planes from appearing on radar”. At the time of the attack it was seen diving down and then circling the Pentagon. Later, it was seen heading in a westerly direction."


I'm sure they can reconstruct the flight path of both planes. If you're interested in seeing the flight path, I can give you a link. It wasn't a few seconds, it was a few minutes. One witness claimed that it was on top of and behind to prevent two planes from appearing on radar. He's the only one though. The rest of the witnesses give accounts that match up with the radar data.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 07:37 PM
link   


Proof is a subjective word. Proof that a plane didn't crash in that hole in Shanksville for an experienced airman such as myself might not be proof to anybody who hadn't the slightest idea of what it would take to ram a 250,000 pound airplane with a wingspan of 124 feet and length of 155 with two 3 ton engines into a hole 10 feet by 20 feet and have only one turbine disk, a fuselage panel 7 feet long, voice and flight recorder remaining


John - had one of your family's products do a nose dive into my town.
At the crash scene, which as member of FD, walked to mark body parts
for the coroner to recover saw only 2 by 3 ft section of tail fin and a
landing gear light (which struck parked car) as identifiable. Rest was
reduced to metallic confetti - no jet engines or any other large pieces.
Guess not building Learjet like they used to.

Here are quotes from NY TIMES story

query.nytimes.com...



Airplane parts were scattered in small pieces throughout the site on Garrett Mountain




An investigator for the board, Chauncey Twine, said the airplane crashed at an 80-degree angle, clipping trees and landing amid rocks and boulders at 3:15. An explosion followed, sending flames higher than treetops, residents said.
''If the angle of descent was not as great,'' Mr. Twine said, ''the fire would have spread. By impacting at that angle, it was fairly contained.''




The parts of the plane were scattered beneath trees, shrubs and rocks, and the smell of jet fuel permeated the air


Notice similarity with Shanksville - while Lear is much smaller than 757
degree of fragmentation on impact is similar.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 08:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by MikeVet
 


What have light towers at "the widest point" to do with what I asked? I asked what size commercial jet would fit into a hole 10' x 12'. Your light poles are not even as long as the widest part of that hole.

Exactly, what relevant point are you trying desperately to make?




Exactly, no 757 is gonna fit into a 10x12 hole.

My point is that your 10x12 statement is garbage. In order to determine the size of the hole from IZ"s photo, one needs something to compare it to, to judge scale. That was the whole point of comparing the holes size to the light tower's size. SCALE. The light tower's trailer will be 4' wide x 8' long. And using those dimensions - or check them for yourself, no that would take some real research, something you avoid - anyone can see that the 10'x12' claim is junk.


When, oh when will you start doing some research of your own, rather than drinking the CT koolaid? No, I've changed my mind, don't change, I like a target rich environment....



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 08:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by OrionStars
 



Because there are numerous reports of what looked to be a C-130 (confimred by military) was flying over the Pentagon and Shanskville. That was after the FAA finally grounded all planes, and prior to the Pentagon and Shanksville alleged descriptions of events by the "official" reports. That is why.

Unless, people could see inside a C-130, they would never know if it was a C-130, EC-130, or a DC-130. They all look alike on the exterior.


[quote]So the military's confirming that a C-130 they used to remotely control the two hijacked aircraft and fly it low enough to the ground so that people could see it? Makes good sense to me.[/quote]

That is not what I wrote. How did you interpret that out of what I did write? I said the military confirmed there was an C-130 over the Pentagon and Shanksville. That is all I said was confirmed by the military.



[edit on 28-12-2007 by OrionStars]



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 08:42 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 


In all that horrible mess from a Lear jet, under totally different circumstances, they still managed to find remains of people's loved ones. Which is more anyone can prove happened at Shanksville, PA.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 08:46 PM
link   
Originally posted by thedman



Notice similarity with Shanksville - while Lear is much smaller than 757
degree of fragmentation on impact is similar.



Correct. The tail always survives. Thats why they put the Flight Recorder and Voice Recorder in the tail.

So if the Learjet 'tail fin' was 2 feet by 3 feet the and the Boeing 757 is approximately (by weight) 16 times larger than the Learjet the 'tail fin ' on the Boeing 757 should be about 32 feet by 48 feet. Where is it?

Thanks for bringing this up. Any chance we got a picture of the Learjet 'tailfin' 2 foot by 3 foot 'tailfin'?


BTB, 'tail fin' is a misnomer. The proper name is vertical and horizontal stabilizers. Where they join is one of the strongest parts of the entire airplane. Thats why they put the recorders there.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by MikeVet
 


Is it? Then why don't you find valid proof that hole is any different size? You do a great deal of telling people they are wrong and prove nothing yourself. You are very consistent about it.



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 09:18 PM
link   
Whats pathetically funny is there is only 2 people that disagree and they do it soooo pooorly. They do it by trying to derail the topic, copy pasted quotes from...who cares.

They hate this picture.. Proves without a doubt no plane crashed there.




It's impossible to believe where the photographer of this picture is standing is around where the massive wing and engine allegedly " burried itself".


No rational mind can agree a plane crashed here.


No plane crash here.

[edit on 28-12-2007 by IvanZana]



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 10:20 PM
link   
Here are some different photos of the crater. Notice the people standing next to them? It looks a little bit bigger than 10 x 12 or 10 x 20.




posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 10:34 PM
link   


This statement is a hodge podge of misinformation. I am a federally certified mining instructor (U.S. Department of Labor Mine Safety & Health Adminsitration IS OAL/11/2000)


....and a 32nd degree Mason, a 12th degree black belt, the 12th incarnation of the Dalai Lama, the grassy knoll gunman, the fifth Beatle....anything else I missed out? Deep Throat maybe??



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 10:35 PM
link   
I wonder what caused that big crater.

No plane crashed there.

[ats]



[edit on 28-12-2007 by IvanZana]



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 10:39 PM
link   


No plane crashed there


So the people that were on the ground there....saw what then crash into the ground? Because they said it was an airliner.....



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
...
Even the photos of the WTC buildings made the smoke appear realistic from kerosene fire. Not so in your photo from what should be kerosene fire....


Again, did you notice that the photo was not white balanced?



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 10:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by Nickdfresh
 


That is incorrect, because the factors you mentioned are highly important to know....


So what you're saying is again that I have to prove that the aircraft might have been able to hit the floor at 580mph or whatever, while you, the supposed skeptic doesn't have to prove anything despite the fact that again, you're the one contravening the 9/11 Report/Popular Mechanics, etc?



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 10:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by OrionStars
reply to post by Nickdfresh
 


Skanksville location was not solid ground? It certainly looked to be so. If not solid ground, what was it? Quicksand? A pond? Lake? Because I did not see anything but solid ground. Not even a mine shaft or fault collapse indication.


It was ground that had mining activity conducted beneath it...

Do I have to explain what tunneling and destabilization do?

BTW, when I look at the earth, all I see is flat ground.

[edit on 28/12/07 by Nickdfresh]



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Boone 870
 


Those are supposed to be people? How can anyone tell for certain those are people?



posted on Dec, 28 2007 @ 11:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Nickdfresh
 


White balanced?



new topics

top topics



 
24
<< 23  24  25    27  28  29 >>

log in

join